The N. Z. Times SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1910. THE LATEST STRIKE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7021, 8 January 1910, Page 4

The N. Z. Times

SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1910. THE LATEST STRIKE

Wr/B WHICH II IKOORPORAXKD TKB ‘'WMLMHeXOtf imbbpxndbnt." i&iibubssd 18*0«

The dispute between the slaughtermen and their employers seems, on the face of it. to be ono in which the intervention of conciliatory agency could he expected to result in the adjustment . of - differences. amidst the rather ' rambling explanation of the position—an irritating feature to the public of all industrial disturbances—the central facts stand out clearly. The industry up to June last had been carried on under on award which provided a piecework rate of 23s per hundred for killing sheep in a day from 8 a.m. At the expiration, of this period the union expressed its willingness to renew the agreement. The employers desired to vary the terms by altering the working hours—but not the pay—that is to say, they desired to have the working day extend from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., within which , time a full eight hours could be worked, hut no overtime was to count until eight hours’ work had been performed. For instance, a man starting work at 7 a.m. would (with an hour for dinner) conclude his ■working day at 4 p.m., and any time ho was called upon to work between then and 7 o’clock at night would be overtime. Further, if work did not commence for a slaughterman until 10 a.m. his working day of eight hours would finish at 7 p.m. In short, the employers desired to have twelve hours within which they could fix the duration of the employee’s labour for eight hours. The men objected to variation of the terms under which they had been employed for the preceding two years, and finally withdrew their undertaking to renew the old agreement and put forward the present proposals day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and extra rates for work done after the lastnamed hour.

* * I Now between these two parties there is a serious matter of .trade principle at stake, but there does not seem to be anything which, makes the line of least resistance an impossible pathway. Indeed, we shotdd imagine that crudity of diplomacy alone has led to the present position. Wo can see very solid reasons why the men should have resisted the proposed innovation in regard to time, because a day’s labour of fluctuating periodicity between tbe circumference of the clock may be right enough in cases of emergencybut takes quite another complexion when made a normal practice. On the other hand; we. can : conceive that in the slaughtering of stock the time of its arrival at the works cannot always be nicely regulated, aud it would be a great convenience to tbe employers to have the period of labour, though not the actual hours worked, considerably enlarged. People are at liberty to draw their own conclusions as to the merits on either side according to their inclination in such matters or special knowledge of this trade. , The point wo wish to make.

however, is that, assuming both parties aro reasonable, and that tho element of pig-headed ness is not a factor in their controversy, tho differences between them do not look to ho such as to resist the solvent of conciliation.

By filing an application tc have the dispute investigated by the Conciliation Commissioner and putting forward details of the proposed variation of the old agreement, tho employers at least gave the workmen a.n opportunity for an “open conference” at ■which the claims of either side might have been discussed with perfect freedom. In declining to have anything to do with tho Commissioner, and, in , addition to standing aloof from his more or less informal tribunal, formulating tho fresh proposals of 25s per , hundred and an eight-hours day, which aro put forward for acceptance as the alternative to a strike, tho slaughtermen have at least stopped from sure ground to a treacherous quicksand. They may win,, hut victory would ba purchased at the cost of Labour generally, as the action of the union is one ■which is bound to bo looked at askance by the community, and place unionism in an unfavourable light to the average citizen. The tactics of the slaughtermen aro not hard to follow. Incensed at the employers declining to continue tho old 'conditions of labour, and further irritated by the appeal to the Commissioner,to conciliate upon a proposed alteration of the hours of work to which they oould \ not subscribe, their disposition on deciding to fight the matter would, quite naturally, be to accept tho fatalistic dogma that “it is as well to bo killed for a sheep as a lamb,” and put forward demands worthy of u greater struggle than the previous arrangement. Hence tho abandonment of 23s and work from 8 a.m. and tho substitution of 2os and overtime after 5 p.m. as the irreducible minimum. On the evidence so far available the union has acted as unwisely as tho employers appear to have been proveoative—with this distinction, that the latter by invoking an independent adjustor of the difference have behaved with perfect fairness to tho , other side.

In tho proceedings before tho Com. missioner the employers would bays had to show very cogent reasons .why the old award—to which the men had been willing to renew—should he varied so materially in reference to hours ns was suggested. Indeed, wo think it would have boon impossible for them to have succeeded in showing reasons sufficient for so radical a change. The union would have appeared before tiro Commissioner almost certain of a recommendation in favour of the status quo being maintained. Instead they propose to throw away the protection the law would ; have given them ' and Appeal to the . old, barbarous method of resort to the coercion of force. ,H.ad the Conciliation Commissioner decided in favour of tlie employers the union would not have been obliged .to, accept his find-, ing. Had tho Court : subsequently; done so we could understand / the union resorting to ! a strike, for it is altogether hopeless to expect to restrain by fines and other penalties men inflamed with a sense of injustice from resisting its , perpetuation. But in this ease the men have dearly mistaken tho signal for - solidarity and reason as one for battle, and prematurely surrendered the bird in the, hand for one in the hush. The Community : could understand and sympathise with a body of workers who were fighting to defend the ordinary conception of an eight-hours day from inversion. It most certainly cannot do so when a definite undertaking is suddenly : varied and another substituted simply because the other side suggested a variation of the prior conditions. To us it seems that tho attitude of the employers in this case was an invitation to strife and the policy followed • by the men destructive of Labour’s interests. So far as the Arbitration Act is concerned our readers will not require to be told that we are growing very pessimistic about it altogether and about the wisdom of wrapping men and industries up in swaddling clothes of any; sort .whatever.